Untitled

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 33, 3 September 1892, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAtt. Sir,- 5-We have only got to look within our own borders to see how necessary it is to protect our industries. One must go largely into details to prevent obscurity. Let us conceive a draper or other business man who sells on credit to a party a valuable line of goods, say to the extent of £100. He parts with such at a great risk, theparty may go insolvent, and if ao the whole stock is sold under the hammer fora song, or half its cost, and a very small dividend passes to the original seller. It's true he did not make the goods, but a bootmaker or manufacturer does make his stock, and if he meets a bad mark, who files, he has to put up with a serious loss of his capital, Thus he runs a large risk, and must seek Protection especially when bankruptcy proceedings have of late been the order of the day. Some men in business sell goods at times below cost price, having no care about the future. This shows how much care is required of those who have so much at stake, and to see that such stock is not sacrificed. Some objections raised by freetraders run thus: —" Why should one pay exhorbitant rates of interest to carry on trade, 12£ per cent, treating such as capital being over protected?" But it must be borne iv mind all loans are not advanced at such a high rate of interest to borrowers. Such a comparison is hardly an allowable one as against the question of Protection in regard to customs duties. One refers to interest on loans; the other being capital practically spent on production of goods and spreading largely over a community giving traders advantages when disposing of manufactured articles. On the other hand capital ivested in industries may be limited. It is hardly so in this country, for freetraders assert many industries are self supporting, but some require judicious protection. The inference of course is we don't want to protect everything. We can even have too much of a good thing. We can afford to dispense with some people's tactics, whose aim is to throw cold water on everything that tends to the public good. It is an open question whether because protection is upheld in one colony, it should follow in another. It is in the adjustment where the case is required. There are as ample reasons in favour of Protection as for Freetrade. The next question is are there no defined limits to its operations ? Careful study will show there are. Some admit that no country ever throve under a policy ot Protection. Untoward circumstances will possibly militate against the best form of such. That kind of Protection which bolsters up an industry and only one of its kind from its commencement, and making such an article eleven times its ■ former cost in as many years, must be pernicious indeed in the extreme, for it must be done at the expense of sunk capital, giving no corresponding return:?, Farmers and merchants are apt to forget the important principle ot allowing a fraction of more wages to farm hands and working class, in regard to some kinds of labour done, when being recouped handsomely for outlay of money. This will present discontent and foster more kindly relations. The farmer again must, if possible, get higher market price for his produce, and the wage earner ia this colony pays for consuming of such out of his wages. The gold returns have been almost stationery in comparison to other productions, leaving us with little if any capital'to fall back upon, whilst we have as regards our produce of various kinds, to contend against fluctuating markets, In answer to some objectors, I am a farmer, and have a crop of wheat to be cut and gathered in, and have only a limited supply of money to meet prices of labour. If another farmer binds himself to give similar men as I require 8s a day to my five, it would place me at a great disadvantage in not being able to obtain some labour for myself, which position goes to prove that I must look after ray own interest* to secure that Protection which most suits my need. Surely it does not detract from the principle of Protection that capital wisely spent and protected must prove beneficial to the whole com* mumty- How is this colony to advance collectively if its not by conserving capital ? Is it not a subject of first importance to all who have made this the land of their adoption ? We must take into account our numbers and our isolated position and most important of all, the proper use of capital to ensure the well being of the colony. I am, etc., John Deverell.